The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, better known as the Iran nuclear deal, increasingly appears to be in trouble. Despite the consensus opinion of U.S. and Israeli intelligence officials and international monitors that the agreement is working, President Donald Trump has made no secret of his hostility to the nuclear deal, repeatedly pledging to “rip up” what he has called “the worst deal ever.”
That the deal is holding and that the U.S, not Iran, is the one considering dropping out was demonstrated yet again this week. Despite dubious claims portraying Iran as out of compliance, the Islamic Republic continues to hold up its end of the bargain by keeping their nuclear program within the limits established by the deal, according to the latest review by the International Atomic Energy Agency reported on Monday by CBS News and Reuters. This official confirmation, though, seems unlikely to give any pause to those campaigning to undo the agreement — and potentially initiate a new round of major conflict in the Middle East.
Although Trump’s war against the deal is largely a product of domestic political rivalries — particularly Trump’s desire to undo the accomplishments of his predecessor, Barack Obama — a coterie of neoconservatives and hawks have also latched themselves to the effort. These operators are seeking to capsize a deal they’ve always loathed. But the growing effort to undo the nuclear agreement has potential implications well beyond the Middle East: It could undermine U.S. influence and credibility in international affairs.
While raising questions about American institutional capacity to abide by diplomatic agreements, destroying the Iran deal would also strike another hammer blow to the critical relationship between America and its European allies. The U.S.-Europe relationship is built on ties and alliances that are vital to American national security and political influence that have already been seriously shaken over the past two years. In recent months, the Trump administration has infuriated its European counterparts by pulling out of the Paris climate accord and calling into question U.S. security guarantees to Europe under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. But pulling out of the nuclear deal — an agreement laboriously negotiated with European support over two years, which international monitors say has succeeded in placing Iran’s nuclear program under strict control — might be a bridge too far for the European Union.
The core of the Trump administration’s efforts to kill the deal center on a purported push to make retroactive changes to the agreement. The administration has repeatedly vowed to terminate the nuclear deal unless such unilateral modifications are made, a demand that many experts say seems specifically calculated to cause the agreement to collapse. Faced with a U.S. administration recklessly undoing vital international agreements for reasons that make little sense outside of U.S. domestic politics, experts say that once-stalwart U.S. allies may soon begin seeking ways to maneuver around a government increasingly viewed as a destabilizing force.
“Any U.S. attempt to unilaterally extend or expand the scope of the deal would be extremely likely to violate the agreement and would also be seen as a slap in the face of Washington’s negotiating partners,” said Kelsey Davenport, director for Nonproliferation Policy at the D.C.-based Arms Control Association. “Trump is already damaging the deal by creating an environment of uncertainty around its future that increases the risk for businesses seeking to go back into Iran to invest.”
Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images
The looming possibility that sanctions could be re-imposed on Iran has helped deter many international businesses from returning to the country. Reintegration to the global economy was one of the key benefits that the Iranian government hoped to reap from the agreement. Even without the formal re-imposition of sanctions, continued public threats to do so could lead to the agreement’s incremental destruction by creating an environment of business uncertainty that makes doing business in Iran impossible.
If Iran perceives that companies are not returning due to U.S. threats, and it is thus not receiving its due benefits under the bargain, the deal could very well collapse. Such a collapse might isolate Iran, but the level of isolation for the U.S. — if the administration is believed by its partners to have acted in bad faith by destroying an agreement that was accomplishing its goals — could be even more damaging in the long-term.
“If the deal falls apart, Iran might resume troubling nuclear-related activities, but it would also result in a serious blow to the U.S.-EU relationship,” Davenport said. “It will absolutely isolate the United States and undermine its ability to negotiate other agreements internationally.”
For many hawkish opponents of the nuclear deal, its main shortcoming is that it does not address a broader scope of Iranian activities in the Middle East, beyond its nuclear program. Iran’s militant proxies in Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria continue to operate at cross-purposes with the interests of the U.S. and its allies, while the ideological hostility between the two countries still manifests in heated public threats and recriminations.
Ironically, however, keeping the nuclear deal itself offered the best path to start addressing these other points of conflict. As long as the critical issue of the nuclear file remained open between the U.S. and Iran, neither side was either able or willing to address other areas of tension or possible cooperation.
Iranian leaders have on numerous occasions indicated that they expected the nuclear deal to be the first step in a broader dialogue between the U.S. and Iran, something that the previous U.S. administration also suggested was a possibility, however remote. But by undoing the deal now, the Trump administration is slamming the door on any further dialogue, including on areas of shared interest like counterterrorism, migration, and even environmental issues.
High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini answers journalists’ questions as she arrives for a Foreign Affairs meeting in Luxembourg on Oct. 16, 2017.
Photo: John Thys/AFP/Getty Images
The most likely consequence of hitting the brakes on the diplomatic process is that tensions between the U.S. and Iran will escalate. There is no guarantee that these tensions will not eventually lead to direct or indirect armed confrontation, a possibility that officials in European capitals are deeply concerned about. For EU countries that have directly suffered the blowback of past U.S. military adventures in the Middle East, the Trump administration’s attempts to upend the JCPOA have been a source of both frustration and dread.
Many in Europe are experiencing a newfound impetus to resist U.S. policy on this issue, even if going against the will of a longtime ally is unsettling to them.
“From the European perspective, the nuclear issue has been dealt with and there was an expectation that they would begin moving on to other issues,” said Dina Esfandiary, a fellow at the Centre for Science and Security Studies at King’s College London. “The fact that we are now suddenly re-litigating the same issues and same concerns from two years ago is, for the EU, frankly astonishing.”
The strength of the original sanctions regime imposed on Iran — the push that brought the Iranians to the table to negotiate in good faith — came in large part due to the support of the EU, as well as Russia and China. This financial pressure needed international buy-in in part because the U.S. itself does not trade with Iran. The “extraterritorial” sanctions and restrictions on global financial markets imposed by the U.S. compelled foreign business to comply, but the diplomacy around the sanctions ensured that the pressure campaign did not result in the U.S. becoming isolated.
Re-imposing international sanctions now could invite exactly that isolation. The likelihood that the same, broad coalition would come together again to reinstate sanctions, when Iran is by all accounts adhering to the deal, is very remote. However, companies facing potential penalties for doing business with Iran might decide that the business is more trouble than it’s worth, particularly if it means potentially suffering fines or losing access to the U.S.’s economy.
In response to this possibility, though, some EU countries began exploring the possibility of insulating their national businesses from extraterritorial U.S. sanctions, as a means of both protecting their economic interests and keeping the deal alive.
“European Union governments and officials have been scrambling to create a dialogue with their business sectors to find solutions that ensure that they can continue doing business, and Iran can continue reaping the benefits of the agreement,” said Esfandiary. “Larger European financial institutions with exposure to the U.S. may deem the risk too high, but given the renewed EU desire to stand up to Trump, greater steps have been taken to encourage medium and smaller institutions to take up these investment opportunities. Such companies have increasingly been encouraged by their governments to go into Iran.”
This September, the Austrian financial institution Oberbank signed a deal to finance investment projects in Iran, with executives stating at the time that German, Italian, and Danish companies were also engaged in similar talks. At a forum on Iran held in Zurich last month, EU business and financial officials said they planned to take further steps to strengthen the deal. Highlighting the 94 percent increase in year-over-year trade between Iran and EU member states, Helga Schmid, secretary general of the European External Action Service, said, “We have passed a very clear message: The nuclear deal is working and delivering, and the world would be less stable without it.” Senior European business executives at the event also raised the possibility of retaliatory and protective legislation to insulate EU businesses from U.S. financial measures.
This October, Federica Mogherini, high representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs, sent a blunt message to the Trump administration about the EU’s intention to uphold the deal in the face of U.S. efforts to undermine it. “The deal is not a bilateral agreement. It does not belong to any single country. And it is not up to any single country to terminate it,” Mogherini said. “We cannot afford as an international community, as Europe, for sure, to dismantle a nuclear agreement that is working and delivering, especially now.”
Photo: Chris McGrath/Getty Images
The inescapable backdrop to the American dispute with its allies is the legacy of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. The war helped precipitate an extended period of violence in the Middle East: regional stability collapsed; innumerable young people around the world were radicalized; and eventually waves of refugees, along with some terrorist operatives, arrived at Europe’s shores. The effects of the war on Europe continue to play out today, helping heighten social divisions and paving the way for the rise of far-right parties.
A crisis with Iran may, similarly, come home to Europe before it reaches across the ocean. While the United States may feel relatively secure triggering a conflagration, for Europeans, the Middle East is their “near abroad,” and what happens there directly impacts European security and stability. The Iranian nuclear deal was thought by many Europeans to be the first step in stabilizing the region and heading off further calamities; their defense of it is likely to be tenacious, especially in the face of a deeply unpopular administration in Washington.
“The JCPOA is a very rare case of a global security crisis being resolved through multilateral diplomatically, and for the EU, that is a very important precedent to preserve – their goal was actually build on that model as a blueprint to resolve other issues,” said Ellie Geranmayeh, a senior policy fellow for the Middle East and North Africa program at the European Council on Foreign Relations. “For the Europeans, it has always been a priority to settle the nuclear issue with Iran through diplomatic means, particularly because of the devastating impact that the Iraq War had on European security interests.”
While EU nations are unlikely to burn bridges with the United States entirely — holding out hope that this administration will be an aberration — it is becoming more likely that European countries will begin making arrangements with countries, like Russia and China, to thwart destabilizing U.S. actions in the near future. While the United States appears committed to shredding the liberal international system that many Europeans rely on for stability, it looks increasingly like European allies will take steps to preserve that order — even it means leaving the U.S. behind.
“If the controversy over the nuclear deal reaches the level of the United Nations Security Council, you may well see the French and even the British taking the very anomalous position of siding with Russia and China on the issue, where they have historically sided with the United States,” said Geranmayeh. “For Europe, the nuclear deal is not just about what happens with Iran – it’s fundamentally about the nature of international norms, deal-making, and precedents.”
Top photo: A staff member removes the Iranian flag from the stage after a group picture with foreign ministers and representatives of Unites States, Iran, China, Russia, Britain, Germany, France, and the European Union during the Iran nuclear talks at Austria International Centre in Vienna, Austria on July 14, 2015.
The problem is not that Trump is attacking a multinational nuclear inspection treaty, it’s that he can’t match Obama’s smoothness and sense of timing in doing so.
Obama attacked the NNPT in exactly the same way, using the same tactics of ignoring the reports of the inspection teams to claim Iran was in violation, but he knew that such lies had a limited shelf life, and hence the JCPOA, which is pretty much the NNPT with ornate capitals added at the beginning of each paragraph.
Let’s say that Trump is allegedly driving away the allies. If the time to attack
Iran comes, we’ll see how many of the allies refuse to join the chaos and mayhem. And that would be the Litmus test. Remember, it’s not over till the fat lady sings and what we think or perceive all goes to dung when the bombing starts.
In citing the Guardian article entitled “Trump threatens to rip up Iran nuclear deal unless US and allies fix ‘serious flaws’”. One cannot help but chuckle at the Guardian’s treatment of Trump’s alleged faux pas when he referred to the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf. It is quite clear that Trump was intentionally sending President Rouhani a thinly veiled message that Iran was in imminent danger of falling prey to Israeli sanctioned and Saudi-led aspirations for the region.
In rebuttal, President Rouhani quipped:
According to the book “Documents on the Persian Gulf’s name” (p.p 92-98 ):
In referring to the United Nations, President Rouhani was reminding Trump that JCPOA was incorporated into international law by the UN Security Council. However, the U.S. State Department has consistently held that:
As China, Russia, the EU, Germany, United Kingdom and France are also signatories to the agreement, Tillerson’s clarification of Trump’s remarks are probably a more accurate assessment of the method by which Trump’s madness will likely become a political reality:
The bipartisan Policy center published an Oct 2017 article entitled “Dealing with a De-Certified Iran Deal” in which it briefly delineates the logic of decertification.
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/dealing-with-a-de-certified-iran-deal/
In citing the Guardian article entitled “Trump threatens to rip up Iran nuclear deal unless US and allies fix ‘serious flaws’”. One cannot help but chuckle at the Guardian’s treatment of Trump’s alleged faux pas when he referred to the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf. It is quite clear that Trump was intentionally sending President Rouhani a thinly veiled message that Iran was in imminent danger of falling prey to Israeli sanctioned and Saudi-led aspirations for the region.
http://www.caissoas.com/CAIS/Geography/persian.gulf/persian_gulf_name_disputing.htm
In rebuttal, President Rouhani quipped:
According to the book “Documents on the Persian Gulf’s name” (p.p 92-98 ):
In referring to the United Nations, President Rouhani was reminding Trump that JCPOA was incorporated into international law by the UN Security Council. However, the U.S. State Department has consistently held that:
As China, Russia, the EU, Germany, United Kingdom and France are also signatories to the agreement, Tillerson’s clarification of Trump’s remarks are probably a more accurate assessment of the method by which Trump’s madness will likely become a political reality:
The bipartisan Policy center published an Oct 2017 article entitled “Dealing with a De-Certified Iran Deal” in which it briefly delineates the logic of decertification.
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/dealing-with-a-de-certified-iran-deal/
this was a long slow slog to so what. There’s a better than even chance that Iran and the Saudis will have it out well before any consequences of withdrawal show up.
The neocon ideology is psychotic. It’s modus operandi is treating others as merely a means to its own end. And for neocons, diplomacy is anathema. They are true believers in zero/sum; they cannot “win” unless the other “loses.” That is their definition of success. Psychotic to the core.
Their world-view is not rational and is not sanctioned in a rational society. Nor does it respond to rational arguments or discussion. It requires strenuous efforts across the board to contain and defuse their insanity. Tedious but necessary. We all know what happens when they slip the leash.
In a similar way, the US Republican Party is the primary entity that is undermining efforts to mitigate climate-change throughout the world. How is that possible? On one hand, the GOP has grown in the medium of American society and is a reflection of its worst instincts, but for far too long the rest of the world has been enabling it.
I think the only way to contain, not just the Trump admin, but also America’s worst instincts is to relentlessly make it cost. Similar to intervention for an addict. Of course, an addict must ultimately take responsibility for his or her own actions and well being. However, this is often not possible without some sort of outside intervention.
Sounds like America needs a time-out. Hopefully, the EU and the rest of the world will stand up for this.
You are deceiving yourself and others when you pretend that
this “neocon ideology” is only the republicans.
In the passing of H.R. 3364 back in July 2017, there was only a total of
5 votes against the bill in both houses of congress. 4 of those votes were
by republicans and the other was cast by Bernie Sanders because he
said he was afraid the bill would begin the destruction of the “Iran deal.”
EVERY democrat vote was for increasing hostilities.
Trump is following the dictates of the democrats and the republicans.
This article is misleading when it implies that Trump is somehow
acting against the wishes of congress. They overwhelmingly
voted for what Trump is doing.
Yes. I completely agree. Both parties are equal opportunity abusers.
My point was not that neocons are Republicans but that American culture itself is fomenting this neocon ideology. The GOP has until now more overtly embraced this but the Democrats seem to be racing to catch up, i.e. bipartisan support for the ongoing destruction of Yemen by SA. Of course, the Obama admin was part of that as well, along with a 10 trillion dollar nuclear upgrade which in part is intended to make nuclear weapons more usable. What could go wrong with that..?
And of course, Mrs. Clinton herself is a dyed-in-the-wool Cold War neocon. As awful as Mr. Trump is, having Mrs. Clinton’s competent, neocon hands on America’s military power was terrifying to me.
As I said, it’s not either party but America itself that needs a time-out and I hope the rest of world will insist on that.
You are right on target!
Isn’t it? Sociopaths can be rational. Sometimes the problem isn’t that people don’t have the right information and a logical thought process. Perhaps their motivations are just corrupt, and trying to reason with them is not an option.
What I am suggesting is that the world-view of zero/sum is insane. Workable perhaps when resources are (temporarily) unlimited but suicide when they are not.
In a world of finite resources, I would suggest that the only way forward as a species is through cooperation. The neocon ideology is the antithesis of this. I believe that it is rooted in a profound disrespect for both one’s own life and the lives of others. No matter how rational or clever or effective something may be, if it leads to your own extinction, it’s stupid.
Unfortunately, that kind of sums up America’s attitude at present. It’s policies are destroying the lives of millions of ordinary people, destroying their homes, creating refugees, creating enemies and endless suffering, for which America still takes no responsibility. We have not even acknowledged our responsibility in Vietnam, let alone anything else.
Even under the so called saner administrations, such as Mr. Obama’s, America itself continues to be a neocon nation both at home and abroad and is becoming more so.
Good article, but it fails to mention that the contention between Europe and the US goes back further than the Iraq war. I well remember the US initiating extraterritorial sanctions back in 1995. We Europeans were hopping mad. Basically the US was forcing foreign firms to comply with its sanctions regime. Imagine if China were to unilaterally decree that Intel may not make chips for Taiwan, or that Cargill may not sell food products there… well, this was the equivalent. One large country telling everyone else what to do. Things never came to a head because the Clinton administration in practice refrained from acting against EU firms.
So this is another important piece of the background. Extraterritorial sanctions are a denial of smaller countries’ sovereignty. It’s just not acceptable that a US president tells Renault or BMW in which markets they may and may not sell their cars. It’s not just Iran and the European satisfaction with the nuclear deal. If we bow to this diktat, others will follow.
I think the US knows this. Extraterritorial sanctions will, I think, not be applied unilaterally. Instead, a dirty game is being set up with the help of Saudi Arabia and the Emirates to provoke Iran into doing something that will cause new sanctions to be passed, this time with the aid of Europe. I don’t think it will work, because of Trump’s incompetence and MBS’s obvious overreach, but one never knows how things work out when there is escalation.
Both houses of congress have already overwhelmingly
endorsed what Trump is doing.
The so-called
“Countering America’s Adversary’s Through Sanctions Act”
H.R. 3364
passed in the house with a vote of 419 to 3 ,
passed in the senate with a vote of 98 to 2,
and was signed into law by Trump on August 2, 2017.
These actions are deliberately designed to undermine Iran and
North Korea and increase hostilities.
The congress has told Trump he must become
more aggressive.
Putting the emphasis on Trump’s garbage is a distraction from
the fact that this is an overwhelming bi-partisan agenda.
Thank you for this report.
I am curious if IT is going to follow up on The Atlantic’s reporting about communications between Wikileaks, Assange and D Trump, Jr.
The Secret Correspondence Between Donald Trump Jr. and WikiLeaks
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-secret-correspondence-between-donald-trump-jr-and-wikileaks/545738/
What do you think about the article? Do you think that it further bolsters the claim that Wikileaks was/is a witting fount of Kremlin-originated propaganda? If so, does it prove that the Trump campaign team was a co-conspirator with Wikileaks and Putin to clandestinely undermine America’s electoral process?
In all the foregoing, I have tried to stick to what is obvious, what is stated, what is known. and, after considering Assange’s own conduct, and his statements…these communications certainly cast his enterprise in a different light.
Is this you pre-consensus opinion?
I admired Assange’s work initially, however, during the campaign, I thought it odd and possibly indicative of bias, that disclosures and releases focused on Clinton and the US.
He has never posted anything negative about Putin, or Russia.
He has never posted anything negative about Trump or his campaign.
It is not as if there’s no material.
His claims that he’s only disclosing what he’s being provided strike me as defensive and not credible.
These latest disclosures clarify the source of a lingering stench.
I largely agree with your assessment. I believe that Julian Assange likes to think of himself as being a free radical in the body politic in spite of his self imposed confinement. His realpolitik approach to affecting political change from the outside has served the Wikileaks brand and Julian’s pocket book very well thus far. Yet, it appears that he was willing to risk tarnishing that brand to escape what may become a lifetime of confinement. By evaluating every relationship it terms of utility, Assange has surrounded himself with politically minded people who cannot be counted on to act selflessly (to their political disadvantage) for the purpose of affecting his release. Rather, it appears that he has been reduced to devising a quid pro quo arrangement with an unsavory ally in the person of Trump for the purpose of bridling his political ambition in service to his own; to this end, the Wikileaks reputation had been offered as the mean by which an Anti-Clinton narrative could be uncritically received as truth. However, I see no evidence that the Kremlin was the source of stolen DNC emails that Wikileaks had in its possession.
After DJT’s Asian trip, he is proving what an incompetent fool he truly is.
Unfortunately, with the bar is so low, the media kudos are flying.
With Chief Kelly, this admin is in for a world of bigger hurt.
Kelly says he can’t be bothered about the tweets. I think he said “they are what they are.”
Somebody should throw him the book, The Gatekeepers, and make sure he reads it.
Denis McDonough blames himself for the crash roll-out of the ACA Exchange and President Obama’s “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”
Those were far simpler times, weren’t they?
you pieces of american shit have no allies. You have some accomplices who obey you because they are invaded (germany, japan, etc), bought off, or both.
Don’t fool yourself, they’re all birds of a feather. All the countries you mention could very well say no and stay neutral if they wanted to but some stand to gain much by an alliance with the Devil while the others just like to act like the NeoNazis they are, this time around, without any consequences to their actions and with the protection of a pack (NATO).
Excellent article. I would add that the U.S. being seen as unreliable could also make a diplomatic solution to the North Korea issue much harder, if not impossible.
Which, in the minds of some at least, would be a feature, not a bug.
Anthony, A few year ago when the news broke that the Obama Admin had been spying on our ALLIES in the EU. I don’t seem to recall all the backlash that the US was being too unreliable and trustworthy. Now way was that?
“Now why was that?”
Well, there was some backlash on a political level. But Obama was much liked and admired over here in Europe. Yes, there’s a bias there. Kennedy was similarly well-liked, as was Clinton, as was – to give a Republican example – George HW Bush. It does a make a difference. That being said, we Europeans when it comes to the US appreciate (1) predictability and (2) support of international institutions. Trump has shown neither. Tearing up agreements is no way to earn the European heart, certainly.